NYC’s law allowing non-citizens to vote is invalidated by court
New York City Law Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote Struck Down as Unconstitutional
A groundbreaking New York City law that aimed to grant non-citizens the right to vote in local elections has been deemed unconstitutional by a New York appeals court on Wednesday.
In a 3-1 majority ruling, Appellate Judge Paul Wooten declared, “We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void.”
The law, which was approved by the NYC Council in 2021 and signed by Mayor Eric Adams the following year, would have allowed approximately 800,000 non-citizens in the city, including green card holders and those with federal work authorization, to participate in local elections.
However, the law was challenged by Republican plaintiffs, and a New York lower court had already ruled against it in 2022. The Adams administration then brought the case to the appeals court.
Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, strongly criticized the lawsuit, stating, ”This is another shameful attempt by xenophobic Republicans who would disenfranchise residents rather than promote a more inclusive and participatory democracy. Immigrant New Yorkers deserve a say in how their local government functions and spends their tax money.”
On the other hand, many Republicans celebrated the ruling. Assemblyman Michael Tannousis, one of the plaintiffs, expressed his satisfaction, saying, “Democracy always wins and I am proud to say it was delivered yet again today.”
New York congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (R.) emphasized that the right to vote in the United States is a “sacred right given only to United States citizens” and urged left-wing lawmakers to refrain from pushing unconstitutional measures that dilute the voices of American citizens.
New York City is not alone in its attempt to implement non-citizen voting. Other cities such as Washington, D.C., and San Francisco have also pursued similar measures. In fact, in October, the D.C. city council passed a law allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants and foreign diplomats, to cast votes in local elections.
What were the main arguments made by proponents of the New York City law that aimed to grant non-citizen residents the right to vote in municipal elections?
K State Constitution and is therefore invalid.” The court’s decision came after several legal challenges were brought against the law, known as Intro 1867, which was passed by the New York City Council in 2019.
The law aimed to give non-citizen residents of New York City the right to vote in municipal elections, including races for mayor, City Council, and other local offices. Proponents of the law argued that it would promote inclusivity, equity, and democracy by allowing all residents, regardless of their citizenship status, to have a say in local governance.
However, opponents of the law contended that it contradicted the principles of democracy and the U.S. Constitution, which reserves the right to vote for citizens only. They argued that allowing non-citizens to vote would dilute the voting power of citizens and undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
The appeals court agreed with the opponents’ arguments, ruling that the New York City Council had overstepped its authority by attempting to grant voting rights to non-citizens. The court stated that the power to decide who can vote in elections is a matter governed by state and federal laws, and that cities and local governments do not have the discretion to expand voting rights beyond what is permitted by those laws.
This ruling marks a significant setback for proponents of non-citizen voting rights, who have been advocating for similar laws in other cities across the United States. New York City had been seen as a trailblazer in this area, with supporters hoping that its success would inspire other jurisdictions to follow suit.
However, the court’s decision is seen as a victory for those who believe that voting rights should be reserved for citizens only. Critics argue that non-citizens, although they may contribute to their communities, should not have a say in determining the direction of local governance, as that is a privilege and responsibility reserved for citizens.
While the New York City law has been struck down as unconstitutional, the debate over non-citizen voting rights is likely to continue. Supporters of these rights argue that non-citizens are affected by local policies and should thus have a voice in shaping them. Opponents emphasize the importance of preserving the integrity of the democratic process and argue that voting is a fundamental right of citizenship.
Ultimately, the question of whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections is a complex legal and philosophical issue. It raises questions about the nature of citizenship, democracy, and inclusivity. As this debate unfolds, it is clear that both sides have strong arguments and a genuine concern for the future of our democracy.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...